Actually 2 of the deleted posts were the same question/comment in various forms....I wasn't even aware that a third had been removed.

At any rate, thanks for the clarification (and for pointing out where I can find why a post was edited) because I too feel it is a fair question since it's the same question Saenger is asking....I just swapped variables.

---

Talking to Iran - U.S. in strong position over nuclear program

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

June 3, 2006

For any number of reasons, President Bush yielded to pressure from allies and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and agreed to allow U.S. involvement in direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The next step is up to Iran.

While the country's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was still sounding defiant yesterday, insisting that “the efforts of some Western countries to deprive us will not bear any fruit,” Iran has very few sensible choices but to negotiate with Western nations over its nuclear program, which many believe to be aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

On Thursday, before flying off to Vienna to meet with foreign ministers from Britain, France, Russia, China (the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) and Germany, Rice announced the United States would join the talks if Iran agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Uranium enrichment can produce either material for weapons or fuel for a nuclear power reactor. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is allowed to pursue a civilian nuclear program, and it insists its program is for peaceful purposes.

Until Rice's announcement, Russia and China, major trading partners of Iran, had been reluctant to join the United States, France and Britain to pressure Iran into negotiations or to threaten Iran with economic sanctions. But Russia and China now are supporting the talks and incentives to Iran if it cooperates. Getting the two nations to join in punishing Iran if it refuses will be difficult.

But with Russia and China publicly appearing to support multilateral talks, Iran no longer has cover to refuse to negotiate. If sanctions were imposed, including severing Iranian banks from the world banking system in this era of globalization, the nation would suffer.

But for the first time since the resolution of Iran's seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1981, the United States and Iran have a chance to meet face to face and talk about their differences. And while there is plenty of skepticism about whether negotiations will be fruitful, both nations, along with America's partners, must do all they can to resolve this conflict. Not doing so is unthinkable.

---

me@rescam.org

A joint U.S.-Iran venture on WMD

DAVID IGNATIUS
THE WASHINGTON POST

June 3, 2006

America's opening to China had its Ping-Pong diplomacy. Detente with the Soviet Union featured the Bolshoi Ballet. Perhaps in the new diplomatic dance between the United States and Iran, a similar people-to-people role will be played by an immunologist named David Haines and his project to study Iranian victims of Iraqi chemical weapons.

Haines first told me his unlikely story several months ago, as he was seeking U.S. government approval for his work with Iranian scientists at the University of Connecticut. The urgency of his project became obvious, after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced Wednesday that the United States is willing to join direct talks with Iran for the first time in nearly three decades. Perhaps Haines' project can be a model for broader educational and scientific contacts if a U.S.-Iran dialogue can begin.

Haines' tale features many of the strands that are knotted together in the current Middle East crisis: weapons of mass destruction; the aftershocks of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime; the legacy of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks; the need to prepare for future WMD attacks by terrorist groups. You may doubt that all those themes could converge in the work of one scientist, but read on.

At the heart of Haines' project is a little-appreciated fact about Iran. Although the world's attention is now focused on Tehran's effort to acquire nuclear weapons, few realize that during the 1980s, the country was the victim of massive Iraqi chemical weapons attacks. An Iranian medical census has identified 34,000 people who were exposed to mustard gas – probably the largest group of such victims since World War I.

Haines began studying the effect of chemical weapons on human beings in 1991 in Kuwait. He had served as a chemical officer supporting the 82nd Airborne Division during the first Gulf War. After the war ended, he left the Army Reserve but stayed on in Kuwait until 1993, studying Kuwaitis who had been exposed to chemical weapons residues after Iraqi stockpiles were demolished.

While working at Kuwait University, Haines quickly realized that it would be useful to study the experience of the tens of thousands of Iranians who had been exposed to chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran War. He was turned down flat when he contacted the Iranian Embassy in Kuwait in 1991, but he persisted. He made contacts with Iranian researchers in the mid-1990s, and by 2000 he was invited to present papers at two scientific conferences in Iran. He returned for conferences in 2002 and 2004, and began working with Iranian scientists who were studying the mustard gas victims. This U.S.-Iranian collaboration has so far produced three academic papers, with a fourth appearing soon in the journal Military Medicine.

In their study of WMD victims, Haines and his Iranian colleagues found some frightening effects. Of the 34,000 Iranians exposed to mustard gas, 42.5 percent had lesions on the lungs, 39.3 percent had eye damage, and 25.5 percent had skin lesions. Lung cancer is widespread among the victims, though there are no solid numbers yet. The next step for the U.S.-Iranian researchers is to investigate precisely how mustard gas changes the cell biology of the lung – and in that way, perhaps, understand how to counteract its effects.

Haines received a $300,000 grant last year from the National Institutes of Heath to study lung tissue samples from the Iranian mustard gas victims – in the hope of unlocking some of these basic biological riddles. The U.S. Army's chemical defense research institute at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland has encouraged Haines' work and hopes to examine the Iranian tissue samples to help with U.S. chemical defense. Oncologists at New York Medical College, meanwhile, even think the research may help them understand lung cancer suffered by those who inhaled debris from the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

This wouldn't be an American story if bureaucratic confusion didn't intrude at some point. An Iranian scientist, Dr. Alireza Hosseini Khalili, was scheduled to join Haines as a research assistant at the University of Connecticut in May. His visa was tentatively approved, then delayed. Meanwhile, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control is refusing to release Iran-related spending under Haines' $300,000 grant, even though the research is backed by the NIH and has encouragement from the Defense Department.

Haines says Iranian scientists have been “overwhelmingly positive” in their response to the joint effort. He explains: “The level of suffering the country experienced as a result of chemical weapons is beyond the imagining of most Americans. Every Iranian community has someone who was exposed.”

This is one WMD issue where Iranians and Americans are on the same side. Maybe that's a start.

---

me@rescam.org

I don't want to get pulled into moral relativism, but I see that both sides in the war crimes debate are talking past each other.

At the time of the Haditha episode, World War III ("The War on Terror") was four years old. The equivalent point in World War II was 1943 about the time that Italy surrendered. The closest comparrison -- assuming the worst allegations about Haditha are true -- would be with the Lidice Massacre by the Germans in 1942 (although Lidice's death count is far higher than Haditha's). Czech insurgents had attracted retaliation from German occupation forces... every adult in the town was killed and the "non-Aryan" children were sent to concentration camps.

Germany did not launch an investigation into the Lidice Massacre.

The fact that the Haditha episode is being investigated at all is a testiment to the US's commitment to the rule of law. As I've said before, I can picture a "human shields" scenario but I'm also open to the idea that the Marines are actually guilty as alleged. If they are guilty, they should and will be punished.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Iran cleric threatens gulf oil supply

By Thom Shanker
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

June 5, 2006

WASHINGTON – Iran's supreme religious leader warned yesterday that oil shipments from the Persian Gulf would be disrupted if the United States made a “wrong move” toward his country over its nuclear program.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed the threat, saying that the United States was awaiting a more formal response to last week's diplomatic initiatives in the matter.

“We're going to give the diplomacy a little time here,” Rice said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” one of three Sunday interview programs on which she advocated a new package of incentives, and potential Security Council penalties, devised to resolve a crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

“And we're not going to react to everything the Iranian leadership says. Over the last couple of days, they have said lots of different things.”

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said earlier yesterday, “If the Americans make a wrong move toward Iran, the shipment of energy will definitely face danger, and the Americans would not be able to protect energy supply in the region.”

In a speech marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic revolution, he said Iran did not intend to pose a threat to any country but that if it came under attack, it would defend its national security.

“If anyone threatens the national interests of the people, it will feel the sharpness of their fury,” the official news agency IRNA quoted Khamenei as saying.

The package of incentives to induce Iran to halt its nuclear program and possible penalties if it refuses has not yet been formally delivered to the government in Tehran by a European delegation, and Rice urged patience. She advocated not responding officially until Iranian leaders had assessed the proposal.

“I don't think we're going to react to everything that's said until they have a chance to see the proposal and until they understand the two paths,” she said.

Rice again acknowledged Iran's right to use nuclear power for civilian needs. She noted that the demand for Iran to freeze enrichment and enrichment-related activities to avert Security Council action had not been dictated by the United States alone, but represented conditions set by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency.

“No one is questioning that it has a right to civil nuclear power,” she said. “But many countries have the right to that that don't enrich and reprocess on their territory. And given Iran's history, it must not have the technologies that could lead to a nuclear weapon.”

On “Fox News Sunday,” Rice said Iran's dependence on oil undercut its threat to halt energy supplies to the world.

“I think something like 80 percent of Iran's budget comes from oil revenue, and so obviously it would be a very serious problem for Iran if oil were disrupted on the market,” she said.

Rice indicated that Iran had weeks, but not months, to respond to the initiatives, repeating language from negotiations last week in Vienna among Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States that produced the package of inducements and penalties.

“I don't believe in setting timelines and deadlines, but the only point here is that this can't be endless,” she said on the CNN program “Late Edition.”

---

me@rescam.org

Kill the death tax - Estate levy set to rise again in 2011

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

June 6, 2006

A world that is sick of knowing about Paris Hilton is in for a tough week, because the Senate is expected to vote on repealing the death tax. The hedonistic rich must be punished, many Democrats will say, because sending their parents' hard-earned money to Washington will somehow help poor people, balance the budget and melt away those extra pounds without painful exercise.

Republicans will point out that nearly all wealthy people built their estates with hard work and prudent investment. It's not fair to tax their earnings a second time when they die, often forcing families to sell job-creating farms or private companies to pay for, say, bridges to nowhere in Alaska.

This is an old debate that death-tax supporters lost a long time ago. Polls suggest that while most folks will never be rich, they all want a fair chance.

In Washington, debate has centered on the narrow issue of how much the federal treasury would “lose” if the government stops robbing graves. Liberals fear $1 trillion would vanish over 10 years. Serious economists say repeal would increase overall tax revenues, as wealthy families fire their fancy accountants and step up investments in capital markets.

Beyond dispute is that the death tax discourages investment and rewards consumption. Along with the kids, the broader economy loses when grandma lives it up. If instead she works past retirement age and invests her earnings, the resulting surplus of capital means someone else can borrow to invent something, start a business or plant a crop.

This basic economic fact prompted a bipartisan attempt in 2001 to abolish the death tax. A compromise cuts rates gradually to zero by 2010, but in 2011 they will skyrocket to 50 percent again. Now Republicans and pro-growth Democrats are trying again. Some fear they won't muster the 60-vote majority necessary to block a filibuster, and talk of another compromise is in the air.

It's time to kill this death tax, once and for all.

---

me@rescam.org

Investing to help disabled workers

DANIEL WEINTRAUB
THE SACRAMENTO BEE

June 6, 2006

Assemblyman Roger Niello, a conservative Republican from the suburbs of Sacramento, is always skeptical when he hears advocates touting studies that show a dollar spent here is going to save the taxpayers a bundle over there. More often than not, he says, such claims turn out to be exaggerated.

But last month, there was Niello, voting for a big increase in spending on a social program that he says is a can't-miss investment for taxpayers: employment help for the developmentally disabled. Niello backed an increase of nearly 50 percent – about $27 million – to expand a service that helps create private-sector jobs for the disabled and then provides counselors to keep the clients employed, sometimes even supervising them at the work site.

“It's money spent now that avoids money being spent elsewhere,” he says.

Niello's view was shaped in part by conversations with an unusual, bipartisan caucus of four lawmakers who have family members who are disabled. The legislators have been lobbying their colleagues and their leadership and recently had a session with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose own family by marriage – the Kennedys – has a long history of activism on behalf of the disabled.

Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews, a Democrat from Tracy, has a 45-year-old son who is developmentally disabled. Matthews said her son spent several years in a state hospital, and even when he was in the community, he did little until he got his first job – in a pizza parlor. He has since worked at a number of fast-food restaurants, and the experience, she says, has changed his life.

“He's a great worker,” Matthews said. “They love him. He's eager. He wants to do a good job. On the weekend he can't wait for Monday so he can go to work.” Having a job, she said, gives his life meaning that it lacked before.

“He is an adult,” she said. “He knows the difference. He wants to work like everybody else. He goes to work every day and he is proud of that.”

Matthews says she and the other lawmakers – Democratic Assemblywomen Fran Pavley, of Woodland Hills, and Betty Karnette, of Long Beach, and Republican Assemblyman Russ Bogh, of Yucaipa – have been able to use their personal contact with the program to make a compelling case that an increase in its budget would be money well spent. Disabled clients who are not employed are entitled to service from supervised day programs, which cost the state even more money.

Schwarzenegger has proposed a 3 percent increase for all programs for the developmentally disabled, included supported employment. Matthews says that's a great start but it's not enough to revive a service that has shriveled over the years from neglect, in good times and bad. The nonprofits that provide the jobs service have been running on essentially the same payment from the state for 20 years. They say it now costs them more to offer the service than they get from the state.

Diana DeRodeff, who runs InAlliance, a supported employment program in Sacramento, says her agency used to be able to recruit college graduates to the counseling jobs, which require someone who can approach private employers, sell them on the idea of hiring the disabled and then manage the client's employment with all the stress and complications that can involve. It takes a problem-solver who can communicate, use a computer, keep detailed notes and work independently in the field. The current salary: about $26,000 a year.

“That does not attract college graduates,” she said.

As a result, there has been more turnover, and the people who are doing the job are stretched thin. They can't serve as many clients, or provide as much help to those they do serve. Private employers, most of whom are wary of the idea to begin with, have been less eager to participate because of the greater chance that problems will arise.

In the past few years, InAlliance has seen the number of disabled people it can keep employed drop from about 250 to about 150. Statewide, the number has dropped from 12,000 to 9,000. That's 3,000 more people collecting disability checks instead of paychecks, more people seeking service from government programs rather than serving others.

DeRodeff and other supporters of the program believe the increase they are seeking would turn those numbers around.

Given the billions the government spends on people who cannot or will not help themselves, investing a bit more on a group of people who are eager to work but need a bridge to employment so they can be more independent seems to be not only compassionate but a smart use of tax money as well.

---

me@rescam.org

Taxes may doom immigration reform

ROBERT D. NOVAK
THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES

June 6, 2006

On May 23, as the Senate raced toward passage of the comprehensive immigration bill before its Memorial Day break began, Sen. Charles Grassley moved the adoption of a new Title III to the measure. It passed easily without anybody mentioning that the amendment raises revenue, which was a violation of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that all such measures originate in the House of Representatives.

That adds another new obstacle to the formidable task of reconciling seemingly irreconcilable Senate and House immigration bills. To surmount the constitutional problem, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in effect, must pass a new bill – either under a procedure requiring unanimous consent or starting over with a bill subject to amendment. Considering the negative comments about the bill that senators heard from constituents last week, this may encourage new legislative attempts to control immigration.

There is no sign that Grassley intentionally sought to sabotage the immigration bill. Rather, what happened May 23 appears an extension of his normal procedure as Senate Finance Committee chairman to keep what he and his staff are doing shielded from colleagues, not to mention the public. While Grassley was amending the immigration bill, it also became known for the first time that he had quietly enacted – and President Bush had signed – a retroactive tax increase on Americans living abroad.

The Grassley touch on taxes may seem distinctive, but it fits the pattern of secrecy in the 21st century Senate. When I told a senior Senate staffer last week that as a reporter I had no idea what was happening to legislation, he replied that he had trouble keeping up himself even though this is his full-time occupation.

What occurred when Grassley introduced his Title III amendment on May 22 typifies the sorry state of the Senate. As Grassley's explanation droned on in his Iowa twang, he was not easy to follow. He asserted he wanted illegal aliens to “pay all outstanding tax liabilities” and “allow the IRS to devise a system” to tax them. He did not explain exactly how this would work and certainly did not reveal that his proposal would raise revenue and, therefore, violate the Constitution.

The only subsequent debate was provided by Sen. John Cornyn, a first-term Republican and a hard-liner on immigration. He opposed the Grassley amendment on grounds it would allow continued employment of illegal immigrants. But Cornyn, a former member of the Texas Supreme Court, did not mention Grassley's constitutional abuse. The amendment passed, 59 to 39, on May 23.

Although Senate staffers realized the constitutional problem, they were betting nobody in the House would notice. But Rep. Bill Thomas, in his last year as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and jealous of its tax-writing prerogatives, certainly noticed and is intent on submitting a “blue slip” to return the bill to the Senate. The BNA Daily Report for Executives of May 30 revealed the problem, but senators I talked to last Friday were still unaware of what they had passed.

That is a common failing in today's Senate. It is just as hard to find many senators who realize that the tax cut bill they had passed and that the president had signed raises taxes on Americans living abroad retroactive to Jan. 1. Actually, that provision was not contained in the versions of the tax reduction bill passed by either the Senate or the House, but was inserted in the dead of night to help “pay for” dividend and interest rate tax cuts.

Grassley was able to accomplish what Treasury bureaucrats have attempted to do for many years under both Democratic and Republican administrations and most recently were blocked by a Democrat, former Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana. It is not a modest tax increase but would raise the $3.5 billion in income taxes paid by expatriates in 2001 by $2.1 billion over the next 10 years.

At least three major tax bills progressing toward final passage recall the old saw that no man or woman is safe when Congress is in session. When legislation is passed by stealth, a violation of constitutional principle or a retroactive tax increase is possible at any time.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

You know what I LOVE about all of these cartoons?

The fact that it makes political minorities believe they are a majority in this country.....nothing beats the "shock and awe" on the face of a leftist when he loses election after election.

It makes me feel all tingly inside.

:)

---

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

You know what I LOVE about all of these cartoons?

How TRUE they are? SAD, but TRUE... ;)

You know what I LOVE about all of these cartoons?

How TRUE they are? SAD, but TRUE... ;)

They are satire, and the ones that try to be humorous employ observational humor (like stand-up comedy's "Did you ever notice...").

This doesn't mean the satire/observations are correct.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

This doesn't mean the satire/observations are correct.

But they usually are... Otherwise, the comedy would be more stupid than funny... ;)

This doesn't mean the satire/observations are correct.

But they usually are... Otherwise, the comedy would be more stupid than funny... ;)

I still remember the first time I saw one of those DARWIN fish emblems on a car. I thought to myself, "That is highly offensive to a lot of people, but it's also funny as hell." (pun intended)

No one proposes that there was ever such a walking fish creature, but it's still funny.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

This doesn't mean the satire/observations are correct.

But they usually are... Otherwise, the comedy would be more stupid than funny... ;)

I still remember the first time I saw one of those DARWIN fish emblems on a car. I thought to myself, "That is highly offensive to a lot of people, but it's also funny as hell." (pun intended)

No one proposes that there was ever such a walking fish creature, but it's still funny.

Personally, I don't find the feeted fish to be offensive nor funny, just plain stupid... ;)

Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Senate blocks same-sex marriage ban

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate blocked on Wednesday a bid to amend the Constitution to essentially ban same-sex marriage.

Marriage laws have always been a state issue, although the federal government has been known to twist arms in the past (Utah in particular). The reason this raises hackles is the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution:

If I am a resident of state X and have a state X driver's license, I can drive thru state Y even if for some reason I would have been inelligible for a driver's license in state Y. I have to obey all of state Y's driving laws while in state Y, but state Y is required to extend "full faith and credit" in my state X driver's license.

The requirements for driving are fairly uniform across the states, so this hasn't presented much of an issue. When one state licenses people to perform something to which another state objects, this becomes a real problem. In the past, the federal government has had to resolve the really serious disputes by making federal laws (or even Constitutional Amendments) to override the differing state laws.

Massachusetts dodged this artfully... they allow same-sex marriage, but one of the requirements to get a Massachusetts marriage license is to be residents of Massachusetts or demonstrate elligibility to marry in the individuals' home state. If all of the states were to adopt similar requirements, the federal government would have no reason (and no authority) to impose its version of marriage on the states.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

This doesn't mean the satire/observations are correct.

But they usually are... Otherwise, the comedy would be more stupid than funny... ;)

I still remember the first time I saw one of those DARWIN fish emblems on a car. I thought to myself, "That is highly offensive to a lot of people, but it's also funny as hell." (pun intended)

No one proposes that there was ever such a walking fish creature, but it's still funny.

Personally, I don't find the feeted fish to be offensive nor funny, just plain stupid... ;)

Is that any way to treat a cute little Mudskipper?